[balls187]

Yes, my comment favors investors, by way of favoring companies (and the potential return on investment), but it does not (in my opinion) hinder employees.

I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment:

> Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them

I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from seeking employment. It means, me as an employer, will not actively solicit employees of other companies if we have shared investors (given the size and complexity of the investments).

"Do Not Hire" on the otherhand, seems to be what you are taking umbrage with, and I concur. Employees should (generally speaking) be allowed to seek employment opportunities without back-room deals preventing that.

[sgustard]

There's no practical difference. If I hire Ben away from you, then protest "he came to us! we didn't poach him!" it matters not one bit to our now shattered relationship.

[balls187]

That's a great point, but seems like the CEO (or whatever principal is shattering the relationship) isn't being mature, nor thinking objectively.

[lawnchair_larry]

And how many entry level recruiting employees or their immediate managers do you think even want to have this conversation with someone like Steve Jobs? No single candidate is going to be worth having to defend yourself to the CEO, whether it was unsolicited or not. Practically speaking, these people are going to be the untouchables.